Also, I recall in the 80s when RTA ridership was much higher, and there were a lot of offices at E. 9 and Playhouse Sq., a lot of people either walked or rode the many Euclid buses (the old No. 6 and several "Loop" buses) back to the Square.  We tend to treat Downtown as if it were Manhattan ... or even Center City Philadelphia.  The reality is that, although a subway is preferred, our downtown is pretty compact and walkable.  I've always heard that the one station caused workers to drive to places like Playhouse Sq. or E. 9th and Euclid, but in reality, I never saw that... Most of those downtown workers just sucked it up, and made it back to Terminal Tower somehow ... sans autos, that is. 

 

Yep, that's what I have been doing for 3 yrs now.  Walking to 6th and Euclid is very doable, even when there is 6 in of snow.  I would imagine it is tougher to do all the way yo Playhouse Sq. but the Trolly buses run often enough in the morning and afternoon that getting around is pretty easy.

I would guess it's a combination of less workers downtown and the fact that as most workers have moved further out, the rapid hasn't.

The reality is that, although a subway is preferred, our downtown is pretty compact and walkable.  I've always heard that the one station caused workers to drive to places like Playhouse Sq. or E. 9th and Euclid, but in reality, I never saw that...

 

For what it's worth, I work in Playhouse Square and drive in to work.  Where I live I'm a 15 minute walk to a bus station and a 25 minute walk to a rapid stop.  The rapid only gets me to Tower City and then it's another 15-20 minute walk to my office.  The bus requires a transfer.  Neither method can get me to my office in less than an hour.  I can drive in, park, and be sitting at my desk within half an hour.  Driving wins, unfortunately.

^I took the rapid when I had offices as far east as E Ninth (three offices, near the lake, right on Euclid and across from Gateway).  That was it.  When I got a job in an office as far as Playhouse Square I drove.  However, it was also my first job where the company paid for parking and in a garage attached to the building.  Could not pass that up.  Maybe i would have still taken the rapid if I did not have that perk.

 

"For what it's worth, I work in Playhouse Square and drive in to work.  Where I live I'm a 15 minute walk to a bus station and a 25 minute walk to a rapid stop.  The rapid only gets me to Tower City and then it's another 15-20 minute walk to my office.  The bus requires a transfer.  Neither method can get me to my office in less than an hour."

 

Really?  I don't know what station you get on at, but most outer stations have free parking.  If you're a 25 min walk to the Rapid, you're probably 5 mins or less, driving.  The longest rapid ride to downtown is about 25 mins, and during rush hour, there's a HL bus or free trolley (2 routes) heading up Euclid every couple mins.  Admittedly, given the popularity of the HL, it can be slowed by crowding, but the trolleys are quick -- no more than 5-8 mins to Playhouse Sq.  Overall, the car-to-rapid-to-bus-to-Playhouse Sq route should take you less than 1 hour on most days, I would think.

 

 

 

"For what it's worth, I work in Playhouse Square and drive in to work.  Where I live I'm a 15 minute walk to a bus station and a 25 minute walk to a rapid stop.  The rapid only gets me to Tower City and then it's another 15-20 minute walk to my office.  The bus requires a transfer.  Neither method can get me to my office in less than an hour."

 

Really?  I don't know what station you get on at, but most outer stations have free parking.  If you're a 25 min walk to the Rapid, you're probably 5 mins or less, driving.  The longest rapid ride to downtown is about 25 mins, and during rush hour, there's a HL bus or free trolley (2 routes) heading up Euclid every couple mins.  Admittedly, given the popularity of the HL, it can be slowed by crowding, but the trolleys are quick -- no more than 5-8 mins to Playhouse Sq.  Overall, the car-to-rapid-to-bus-to-Playhouse Sq route should take you less than 1 hour on most days, I would think.

 

 

 

This is what I do.  And if the weather is a pain (like this morning with the heavy snow) I grab the HL as there is one waiting.  The E-Line is good, and I will grab it if it shows up while walking by, but the HL is great to jump on as they tend to stop over in front of TC for a bit before moving on.  Great to get out of the Rain/Snow.

 

I think there are good many Blue/Green line stops that don't have parking.  So if that was what Foraker was riding it may have made more sense to drive. 

RTA issues design change order for Mayflield Station

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2012-2-7-MayfieldDesign.pdf

RTA issues design change order for Mayflield Station

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2012-2-7-MayfieldDesign.pdf

 

Well, I can understand why they want to go with a single-platform station, but that also means spreading the RTA tracks to put an island platform in between them. That will result in service disruptions but will provide a station with less operating costs in the future.

Yes, this seems rather unusual for RTA station reconstruction as they've, in the past, worked w/in the existing track configurations -- sometimes to their peril -- I wish they'd moved the eastbound track over several feet to have created a wider station house/platform at W. 25, for example -- now we have the absurd situation of crowds of entering & exiting passengers squeezing past each other in that narrow W. 25 staircase... And of course (yes, I know I continue to beat the drum), I think that the choice of no escalators is a mistake, and RTA has obiously eliminated them from Mayfield, which is not the way to handle a potentially (and hopefully) busy station... But at Mayfield, I guess RTA figures that the expenses and disruption caused by moving the track is more bearable than the added expense of the 2 side platforms (and headhouses) as opposed to the island/single headhouse... I guess the they expect the Health Line to pick up the slack btw U. Circle and Stokes/Windermere during construction.

 

I haven't read the entire 100+page, very detailed, report/study on the Mayfield station, but I would guess that it promises to be heavily patronized.  It stands to be the best located station of any Red Line station, in terms of immediate accessibility to high density residential population (esp at Little Italy) and commerce... In a sense, it will be a more "traditional" rapid transit station -- the only heavy passenger station outside of downtown that will receive passengers from surface (bus) transfers or on foot with no RTA parking (at least as far as I know) besides University Circle 1/2 mile down the tracks.

I don't know this, but I suspect RTA will relocate the eastbound track to the vacated industrial track bridge over Mayfield. That's the easternmost bridge. If so, it will provide a very wide platform -- perhaps as wide as 30 feet.

^That would be great... this is going to be a busy station.

Is it possible it could be the second busiest station after downtown?  With the relocation I could see many more west side employees of UH using the red line than currently do.  The way the whole UH complex is situated, with connecting buildings, an employee will only be a block a way from an entrance to the whole complex (even if you work in Lakeside or Rainbow on Adelbert it will be an inside walk to your job).  Right now, the University Circle station, and of course E 120, are not that convenient to UH (a lot longer walk outside).

 

In addition, you will off course get more Little Italy traffic, and I also think that station is more convenient to all the museums than the current stations.  I think this is the case for a large portion of CWRU as well so maybe more employees there as well.  The HealthLine will probably get you to more points downtown but if you are going to Public Square or the west side why not take the rapid.  Don't forget the Lot 45 development as well.  Yes it will be a very busy station and again, maybe the second busiest on the line.

I would imagine one of the west side commuter stations is second busiest, maybe Brook Park.

Is it possible it could be the second busiest station after downtown?  With the relocation I could see many more west Right now, the University Circle station, and of course E 120, are not that convenient to UH (a lot longer walk outside).

 

Currently, a lot of employees cut over the Adelbert bridge (over the Rapid tracks), then walk down the walkway to the U. Circle station.  During the evening rush, there's a ton of UH people getting on westbound trains; I see them streaming down the walkway from the hospital... You're right, though, that the Mayfield Station will be convenient to UH employees on the eastern part of the campus, most notably, those in the hugh new Seidman Cancer Center at Euclid & Cornell.

 

Also, I'll bet there will be heavier feeder service on the #9 down Mayfield -- it's a much more direct connection than the current, roundabout connection to the Univ. Circle station.  Also, it would be nice if some kind of shuttle service from the new station to Coventry could be established -- it's a 2 min ride up Mayfield (up the hill).  Perhaps the UCI (greeny buses) could cover this.

I would imagine one of the west side commuter stations is second busiest, maybe Brook Park.

 

At various times, the title of #2 has gone back and forth between Brookpark and Windermere.

 

If more development occurs around the Mayfield Station, then definitely this could definitely command the reins of #2 station. In addition to traffic generated by Little Italy, UH, Uptown, MOCA, CIA, Abington Arms, and transfers from the #9, then throw in the Lot 45 TOD on the north side of Mayfield and maybe a development on the UH parking lot on the south side of Mayfield. Then add in the various festivals, the feast and other events in Little Italy, and yes, this could easily be RTA's #2 station.

...^ definitely a rare RTA 2-way station: lots of commuters (from) as well as serving as a major destination (to).  MOCA is well situated to generate traffic; I'll bet more people will take the Rapid to MOCA than the HL, which stops at its front door.

Depends on where MOCA's visitors are coming from. BTW, it's also possible that more buses may be routed to the Mayfield station if they build the extension of Campus Drive and add a bus layover on it on the west side of Lot 45. RTA has the money for the bus layover (about $2.5 million). In fact that's the first piece of the funding they got for the Mayfield station. Not sure about the timing of it, or of the Lot 45 project. I seem to recall that UCI has a Request For Proposals out, or may be issuing an RFP soon. Anyone remember?

^If I recall the LOT 45 requests for proposal are in and they got three.  I think they are NPR Group, Coral and Snavely (might be wrong with the third).  They have been in hand for a few months now.

I don't know this, but I suspect RTA will relocate the eastbound track to the vacated industrial track bridge over Mayfield. That's the easternmost bridge. If so, it will provide a very wide platform -- perhaps as wide as 30 feet.

 

KJP, in the RTA presentation you linked to, the change order includes "Relocate existing EB bridge 8.5’ south." Assuming this refers to the eastbound red line bridge over Mayfield, wouldn't this put the new bridge in the gap between the current bridge and the vacated bridge and leave a center platform of 10-15 feet wide?

 

 

^If I recall the LOT 45 requests for proposal are in and they got three.  I think they are NPR Group, Coral and Snavely (might be wrong with the third).  They have been in hand for a few months now.

 

Wonder when UCI will make a decision? And I sure hope that the two respondents who don't get selected don't lose their interest in the area. Instead I hope they turn their attention to the parking lot on the south side of Mayfield and go knocking on UH's door to build on it. At least one can dream/hope/wish.

 

KJP, in the RTA presentation you linked to, the change order includes "Relocate existing EB bridge 8.5’ south." Assuming this refers to the eastbound red line bridge over Mayfield, wouldn't this put the new bridge in the gap between the current bridge and the vacated bridge and leave a center platform of 10-15 feet wide?

 

I missed that. Then yes, that could mean this is going to be a very narrow platform. Consider that GCRTA's Tokyu cars are about 9.25 feet wide, the track centerlines are 15 feet apart, and the FTA allows only 4 inches (if I remember right) of horizontal gap between the side of a railcar and the edge of a station platform. So, if the bridge is going to be moved only 8.5 feet, that moves the track centerlines to 23.5 feet apart. Take the 9 feet, 3 inches of the rail car's width, add the 8 inches of horizontal gap and you get a total just shy of 10 feet. Subtract the 10 feet from the distance between the centerlines and you get a platform width of about 13.5 feet. Please check my math!

 

If my math is accurate, then that's slightly more narrow than the Euclid-East 120th Station's platform (which appears on GoogleEarth to be about 15 feet wide) but wider than the Ohio City station's platform (which appears to be only 11 feet wide).

 

Well, at least they'll save money on salting the platform.....

Are the Tokyu cars bigger (longer) than most more contemporary rapid transit cars (sans Chicago's where we know the ancient, tight el curves limit their length)?  I mean, in comparison to New York's or Boston's Red Line, or Toronto's (which I haven't ridden on since childhood)... Tokyu's seem extremely large, long, esp... How long a train will Mayfield accommodate?  It seems the system has varous lenghts (E. 105, 1 car; Tower City 4, at least;  E. 55 appears no longer than 2, etc.)

Are the Tokyu cars bigger (longer) than most more contemporary rapid transit cars (sans Chicago's where we know the ancient, tight el curves limit their length)?  I mean, in comparison to New York's or Boston's Red Line, or Toronto's (which I haven't ridden on since childhood)... Tokyu's seem extremely large, long, esp... How long a train will Mayfield accommodate?  It seems the system has varous lenghts (E. 105, 1 car; Tower City 4, at least;  E. 55 appears no longer than 2, etc.)

 

Yes, they are longer than most rail system's cars, about 75 feet long (coupler to coupler). I don't know how long the Mayfield station's platforms will be, but I would hope they would accommodate three-car trains.

^Wow, THAT'S long... No wonder 2 &  3 car-trains can handle such large crowds: St. Patrick's Day (yikes!) and Browns' games, to name a few...  With such high capacity, explosive growth in ridership (which promises to grow even more when projects like Uptown, the casino, Medical Mart and FEB go on line), and the much more efficient operation thanks to PPOP (for the 1st time I can remember, the Red Line operates like a real rapid transit all day and not just during rush periods), I'm more of the mind not wanting dual height cars... If RTA decides to go that route down the road, I'll have no problem with it.  However, as the Red Line is balancing out it's East and West Side operations (with the opening of Uptown and improvent of E.55 and Univ. Circle stations)  adopts its own identity of being a true heavy-rail, high speed/high capacity operation, it becomes more operationally distinct from the LRT Blue/Green Lines, other than the obvious fact they share tracks,  stations and maintenance facilities.

 

I know the idea of a 1-seat through ride from Shaker Heights to the Airport is tantalizing, but I just don't see that the expense (and propable confusion among riders) of operating dual height trains is worth the few extra passengers such a service may attract -- and I say that as a Shaker resident who would clearly stand to benefit such a service as a frequent airport user..

Pittsburgh's LRT system carries more riders than Cleveland's rail system and their dual-floor cars can handle crowds. We'll see how they do in handling more Steelers and Pirates game crowds that will surely come with the North Shore extension opening this year. But I suspect it will not be as much of a problem as feared by Cleveland RTA's managers in using such dual-floor cars here.

Pittsburgh's PAT's a very unusual rail system.  They have 5 high-platform subway stations (I understand the 6th, Penn Station, is no longer being used), and then outside of downtown, a slew of close-spaced, neighborhood stations (south  the Mt. Washington(?) tunnel); most of which are low, short platforms (often by the sides of crossing streets), many having only space for one car (so that passengers intending to exit at the station must be on that 1st car).  A few of the South Hills suburban stations are high platform, but most aren't.  Cleveland, on the other hand, has a distinct heavy rail line, and 2 distinct LRT's which, historically, have been separate; even operated by separate agencies until 1975.  It's confusing enough that the Blue/Green lines have the Pay Enter-Eastbound/Pay Exit-Westbound system, vs. the pre-paid POP the Red Line utilizes, without the added confusion of which door commuters must enter or exit based on the line station the train is at...

... is all this worth the hundred or so Shaker passengers who want to use the Airport?

 

btw, regarding your comment that Pittsburgh carries more rail passengers:

 

Wikipedia  listed RTA ridership as on its rail combined 34 miles as: heavy (19,300) and light (10,800), or 30,100 combined -- and these are old numbers prior to the dramatic increase on the Red Line with the more modest increase on Blue/Green.

 

Wikipedia PAT's "T" 25-mile LRT 25,200.

 

Are these numbers wrong?

 

^Per the latest APTA data, RTA's combined rail ridership is about 25% higher than Pittsburgh's.

 

But I don't think having dual platform capability would be at all confusing.  I doubt passengers care at all- it's the same drill: stand on the platform and walk into an open door. SF's Muni system manages just fine with dual platform heights and much, much higher ridership than RTA or Pittsburgh.  I doubt it's worth spending a ton upfront for it, but long term having a single fleet would probably cheaper to maintain and operate, on top of the greater route flexibility.

btw, regarding your comment that Pittsburgh carries more rail passengers:

 

Wikipedia  listed RTA ridership as on its rail combined 34 miles as: heavy (19,300) and light (10,800), or 30,100 combined -- and these are old numbers prior to the dramatic increase on the Red Line with the more modest increase on Blue/Green.

 

Wikipedia PAT's "T" 25-mile LRT 25,200.

 

Are these numbers wrong?

 

 

No, just my conceptualizing of my argument was wrong. I think of Pittsburgh as having only one rail line (wrong) like a vine with various branches and Cleveland as having two rail systems (heavy and light) which is also wrong.

 

From what I understand, RTA isn't so worried about passengers being confused. They're more worried about it taking a long time for trains to load and unload through fewer doors because not all doors will be able to open at all stations.

^Ahhh got it.  I'm not familiar with Pittsburgh's cars.  If door capacity is an issue, RTA could just equip all the doors with dual platform capabilities, like SF's light rail:

 

From what I understand, RTA isn't so worried about passengers being confused. They're more worried about it taking a long time for trains to load and unload through fewer doors because not all doors will be able to open at all stations.

 

That may be a valid (happy) concern as the Red Line gets busier and faster boarding (more like a true heavy rail rapid transit)...

^Ahhh got it.  I'm not familiar with Pittsburgh's cars.  If door capacity is an issue, RTA could just equip all the doors with dual platform capabilities, like SF's light rail:

 

 

What San Francisco does is no longer compliant with FTA's ADA rules. FTA requires "level boarding" from all cars in a train at all stations.

 

That may be a valid (happy) concern as the Red Line gets busier and faster boarding (more like a true heavy rail rapid transit)...

 

Each of Pittsburgh's LRVs have one door for low-level boarding and three doors for high-level boarding. That's more high-level doors than what each Tokyu car has in Cleveland....

 

^Thanks.  I had no idea the Pittsburgh cars were like that.  I totally get the capacity concern for vehicles like that with all those doors.

 

But I'm not sure I follow that ADA compliance issue.  Is RTA in compliance now with its in-station lifts at Blue/Green line stations?  If so, couldn't it keep using them with Muni-style cars?  I know the ADA rules don't always match reality, but if anything, I'd think switching to dual-platform cars like Muni's would improve accessibility, because it would allow much simpler level boarding at the shared LR/HR stations.

 

EDIT: sorry, I might just be slow here.  Is the issue that all new LR vehicles now have to offer true level boarding, either through low floor designs or high platform stations?  So RTA's lifts are just OK as a stopgap?

High-low cars could be implemented here by RTA... my only point is Pittsburgh's system is a-typical.  It has a lot of stations, more than RTA but in a shorter system, meaning that it picks up/drops off passengers in dribs and drabs, and not the heavy amounts RTA's Red Line does/is designed to handle, at its 18 stations... Also remember the fact that Pittsburgh's cars are LRTs -- considerablly smaller inside, than those huge Tokyus we have on the Red Line... Like I say, it's doable here, but not with out probable operational slowdowns, particularly during crush periods.... it should also be noted that Pittsburgh's LRT is one of the slower ones I'm aware of... Boston's Green Line is slow and congested, too, but at least the Green Line is one of the heaviest LRT's in the nation in terms of traffic, while Pittsburgh's, like RTA's, is one of the lightest...

 

I'm just wondering if RTA is thinking that, after implementing the POP that has greatly sped up Red Line off-peak operations by eliminating individual fare counting, whether they want to risk slowing down service with narrower, tighter LRT cars... just a thought.

^Thanks.  I had no idea the Pittsburgh cars were like that.  I totally get the capacity concern for vehicles like that with all those doors.

 

GCRTA's capacity concern isn't with how many seats it could offer. It's with how fast or slow a dual-floor train might load/unload at Tower City or some of the others stations during special events.

 

But I'm not sure I follow that ADA compliance issue.  Is RTA in compliance now with its in-station lifts at Blue/Green line stations? 

 

No, except at the few stations where the ramps were installed (ie: Shaker Square, Warrensville, Green Road).

 

If so, couldn't it keep using them with Muni-style cars?

 

Yes, but I believe Muni-style cars are no longer acceptable under FTA's relatively new level-boarding rules unless a waiver is granted.

 

I know the ADA rules don't always match reality, but if anything, I'd think switching to dual-platform cars like Muni's would improve accessibility, because it would allow much simpler level boarding at the shared LR/HR stations.

 

EDIT: sorry, I might just be slow here.  Is the issue that all new LR vehicles now have to offer true level boarding, either through low floor designs or high platform stations?  So RTA's lifts are just OK as a stopgap?

 

Correct on both questions. Unfortunately, all transit agencies will have to conform to ADA "level boarding" rules by a certain date (don't know when it is) or get waivers or extensions. Each city's transit system is conforming in different ways. Some can do lifts (such as with buses), or can build ramps (as on the Shaker lines) or creating "mini-humps" like what GCRTA did on The Red Line side at Tower City Station.

 

Transit agencies can conform to level-boarding requirements by addressing station design or railcar design or both. Dallas is an example Dallas of a city that did both. DART is spending about $200 million to conform to level boarding by providing mini-humps at stations and by inserting into the middle of all its 115 of its railcars a low-floor section.

 

http://www.dart.org/factsheet/slrv/default.asp

http://www.dart.org/riding/understandinglevelboarding.pdf

 

 

 

Further discussion on the proposed Lot 45 Transit Oriented Development next to the funded/planned University Circle-Mayfield Red Line station has been moved to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26994.0.html

 

Which means we now have an actual development project here! Woo hoo!!

 

 

 

Discussion of the station relocation from Euclid/East 120th to Mayfield should continue here in this thread, however, since that is an RTA rapid transit construction project.

Does anyone know where I can find detailed design drawings for the University Circle (f.k.a. University-Cedar) Rapid Station redesign? I found some small maps and renderings on the RTA site

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/universitycircle/

 

I was hoping to find something larger and more detailed, hopefully the site/civil drawings. I looked around on the City planning website hoping the submittable package would have been posted for public review, but to no avail.

 

TIA

Du'oh...found it. I apologize, now the search is working for me, which it wasn't last nite.

 

Is this going to be constructed this year?  It looks like all the bus transfer operations are being moved to the north side of Cedar, to where the jughandle ramp is now.

 

The new RTA Cedar-University Rapid Transit Station was on the Landmarks Commission agenda for Aug. 25. The project has to go through Landmarks since part of the station is in the Little Italy Historic District...

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2011/08252011/index.php

 

Some of the graphics at the above link reveal its revolutionary design. I'm sure this will be a topic for discussion!......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The existing station:

 

 

 

 

 

The planned station:

 

 

^I'm not sure you'll find anything particularly large or detailed on the web, but the architect's site has many more images: http://www.yazdanistudio.com/projects/list/

 

EDIT: shows what I know!

I am curious why the blue and green line are so slow when moving thru their own dedecated ROWs. 

 

Using my handy Speedo app, I clocked the LRT at a maximum speed of 40 mph through the ROW between East 55th and Shaker Square,  while I have clocked a LRT with maximum speed of 53 mph between east 55th and East 34th street.

 

does anyone know what is keeping the speeds down?

 

Is it posible to fit a Fare machine unto every LRT train to implement a form a POP to speed loading and unloading?

 

how much a benefit would a low floor LRT be for speeding loading and unloading times? I notice alot of elderly people having issues entering and exiting the train. 

 

Is any form of traffic signalization priority used on either the blue or green lines? would it be possible or safe to use signalization priority to increase the speeds when crossing at-grade intersections?

 

^I'd definitely welcome any increase in max speed, but unless it can be achieved very cheaply, I doubt it's worth the cost.  Increasing average speed by 5 mph through the 55th/SS ROW would only shave off about a minute or so on the trip.

 

I can see POP improving integration with the Red Line, but would it really speed up loading/unloading all the much? Though it's confusing to newcomers, the current pay-enter-eastbound/pay-exist-westbound seems to be pretty efficient. Other than some at Shaker Square, I don't recall many passengers boarding LRT vehicles outside of the traditional commuter flow, though it's been years since I rode regularly.

I have a question, with the recent increase in rail ridership I believe there is a possibility that RTA adds a third car per trip. My question/concern is it seems as if a nice number of stations only have enough space for two cars (105th and Quincy, Superior etc.) so do you think RTA is going through a construction of all new rail stations that can hold up to at least 4 cars per station? I say this because of the construction of E. 55th Station which seems to be able to allow a large number of cars, the potential construction of Mayfield station, and Puritas station (correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems as if this needs to be done.

I am curious why the blue and green line are so slow when moving thru their own dedecated ROWs. 

 

Using my handy Speedo app, I clocked the LRT at a maximum speed of 40 mph through the ROW between East 55th and Shaker Square,  while I have clocked a LRT with maximum speed of 53 mph between east 55th and East 34th street.

 

does anyone know what is keeping the speeds down?

 

When I was a kid in the 1970s, my dad used the family car to race the PCC-equipped rapids down Shaker and we clocked them at 55 mph. So it's not technology that's slowing things down.

 

 

Is it posible to fit a Fare machine unto every LRT train to implement a form a POP to speed loading and unloading?

 

The fare machines need to be on the platforms to speed up loading. Putting RTA fare machines (especially the EXISTING machines!) on the trains would cause horrific delays! Even user-friendly machines would cause delays. To put fare machines on the platforms requires a change in RTA's fare policy on the Blue/Green lines, from the "pay leave" westbound/"pay enter" eastbound, left over from the day when the City of Shaker Heights owned the Shaker Rapid Transit System.

 

how much a benefit would a low floor LRT be for speeding loading and unloading times? I notice alot of elderly people having issues entering and exiting the train. 

 

I'm sure it would benefit.

 

Is any form of traffic signalization priority used on either the blue or green lines?

 

No.

 

would it be possible or safe to use signalization priority to increase the speeds when crossing at-grade intersections?

 

Absolutely!

I really wish it was possible to have the red line connect to the Cleveland Clinic. I think we would see a huge increase in ridership.

I am curious why the blue and green line are so slow when moving thru their own dedecated ROWs. 

 

Using my handy Speedo app, I clocked the LRT at a maximum speed of 40 mph through the ROW between East 55th and Shaker Square,  while I have clocked a LRT with maximum speed of 53 mph between east 55th and East 34th street.

 

does anyone know what is keeping the speeds down?

 

When I was a kid in the 1970s, my dad used the family car to race the PCC-equipped rapids down Shaker and we clocked them at 55 mph. So it's not technology that's slowing things down.

 

the Breda's have a max speed of 55mph, any thoughts on why they would be restricting the speed?  Is there a system wide maintenance issue with RTA's rail network?  when is it due for major repair work, i.e. replacing/upgrade the cantenary and rails. I have been riding the Redline alot recently and have been noticing how aged everything looks.

 

Is it posible to fit a Fare machine unto every LRT train to implement a form a POP to speed loading and unloading?

 

The fare machines need to be on the platforms to speed up loading. Putting RTA fare machines (especially the EXISTING machines!) on the trains would cause horrific delays! Even user-friendly machines would cause delays. To put fare machines on the platforms requires a change in RTA's fare policy on the Blue/Green lines, from the "pay leave" westbound/"pay enter" eastbound, left over from the day when the City of Shaker Heights owned the Shaker Rapid Transit System.

 

 

when i was in Amsterdam riders would be able to buy his ticket on board and not interrupt the driver nor hold up the tram while buying that ticket.  understand the ticket machine was not located at the front of the Train but in the center of the train.  there are some trams in Amsterdam with a live conductor onboard to sell and validate tickets.

 

the alternative would be to locate 2 set of machines at each of the 32 Shaker rapid stations. one for each platform, west and east bound, for 64 total, or to place one machine on each train for a total of 34 ticket machines.

 

like this system in Portland.

I really wish it was possible to have the red line connect to the Cleveland Clinic. I think we would see a huge increase in ridership.

 

I'd settle for a more reliable connection between the existing redline stations and the CC.

 

the only link between the HL and the Redline is windermere and the PEE step of East 120th

I really wish it was possible to have the red line connect to the Cleveland Clinic. I think we would see a huge increase in ridership.

 

I'd settle for a more reliable connection between the existing redline stations and the CC.

 

the only link between the HL and the Redline is windermere and the PEE step of East 120th

 

Something needs to happen. Also wouldn't a station on Adelbert be more convenient for Case and UH than the current station location at Cedar? Mayfield road should be a huge stop though and I'm looking forward to that station being built!

I really wish it was possible to have the red line connect to the Cleveland Clinic. I think we would see a huge increase in ridership.

 

I'd settle for a more reliable connection between the existing redline stations and the CC.

 

the only link between the HL and the Redline is windermere and the PEE step of East 120th

 

Something needs to happen. Also wouldn't a station on Adelbert be more convenient for Case and UH than the current station location at Cedar? Mayfield road should be a huge stop though and I'm looking forward to that station being built!

 

I think a station at adelbert would be good idea but... it puts it very close to may field and tkes it off the normal route of buses on cedar hill. 

 

I would like to see more pedestrian bridges and paths in cleveland , If you were to place a pedestrian bridge from the university circle station to the CWRU Quad, it would reduce the walk from 1730 ft to 400 ft.

 

imagine how successful a pedestrian bridge from the east bank of the flats directly to the west bank of the flats.

I don't like using our rail line as an entity to just have busses drop people off at so that they could transfer. The rail line should serve the neighborhood, not a bus transfer. The redline completly misses the Cleveland clinic, which sucks, but atleast it passes directly behind UH and Case. But what do we do? We build inconvient station locations that result in a loss of ridership, just so that we can have busses nearby for transfers. Its annoying be we aren't taking full advantage of an already not so great route. Adelbert would drop people right at Case's and UH's doors! There are even some lots over there that could be TOD.

 

Edit: Also an Adelbert stop would better serve further away places like Severance Hall, and the Art Museum. But funding is already in place so I know there is no way this station will be moved unfortunately.

 

But I agree with you that at a minimum, a pedestrian pathway to Van Horn Field is a must! And some sort of strong connection to the Cleveland Clinic.

^Ideally the station could be better located to serve both bus riders and Case/UH by being moved between the current location and Adelbert, but that would probably take some serious money...and that ship has sailed.  The next best solution is to provide an attractive pedestrian route from the station to Case/UH.  Currently that route is hideous and betrays a certain level of indifference to rail access by those institutions.  http://goo.gl/maps/qKVD  This is something UCI should take on ASAP.

 

 

And unfortunately the station is next to this pedestrian nightmare! I do believe they plan on addressing this though. I hope so atleast, because it is much needed.

 

 

 

Edit: Makes is a little better. Especially the connection to Case, but there still needs to be a connection to the interior of case by Van Horn Field in my opinion.

 

I don't like using our rail line as an entity to just have busses drop people off at so that they could transfer. The rail line should serve the neighborhood, not a bus transfer. The redline completly misses the Cleveland clinic, which sucks, but atleast it passes directly behind UH and Case. But what do we do? We build inconvenient station locations that result in a loss of ridership, just so that we can have busses nearby for transfers. Its annoying be we aren't taking full advantage of an already not so great route. Adelbert would drop people right at Case's and UH's doors! There are even some lots over there that could be TOD.

 

In hindsight it wasn't  great idea to place the Redline in a rail ROW, how can it be part of a neighborhood when it is placed in man made barrier to that neighborhood.is to place a Cap over the Rail ROW

never Forget that both UH and CC have the resources to become more supportive of transit, by simply stop building so many garages and to subsidize passes for their workers.  from an Urban design POV both institutions have been lack luster in their design of campuses that encourage walkability  at some point we have to stop cursing RTA and blaming them for our transit Woes and look to our business community and politicians for why they continue to build in a dysfunctional way.

 

Edit: Also an Adelbert stop would better serve further away places like Severance Hall, and the Art Museum. But funding is already in place so I know there is no way this station will be moved unfortunately.

 

But I agree with you that at a minimum, a pedestrian pathway to Van Horn Field is a must! And some sort of strong connection to the Cleveland Clinic.

 

the  ROW is still too far from the art museum and severance hall to capture much of that traffic, you must ask the question where are the riders coming from? and how likely is it that they would be willing to walk .4 miles from an Adelbert station or .55 miles from a Cedar glen station to go to the see the orchestra or visit the art museum.

 

I think the current system begs for better circulation infrastructure

 

CWRU  Evening shuttle

 

 

Commuter Shuttle

 

Circle link

 

uCRC bus route

 

 

the cleveland clinic operates four different Shuttle routes and Even operates a hospitality shuttle that takes people from the museums to the hospital. but they do not offer a shuttle from a redline station to the campus.

 

that is a total of 9 differnt shuttles in UC maybe more for the VA and UH, in the Same area.

 

what has happened is that people don't know about these services, so they don't use them. 

 

a unified circulation system in UC would do alot to improve transit use in the area.

 

We should work on this first before we complain about moving a redline station